OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

Gould 0738 wrote:
Why the disappointment? Surely you were aware Limbaugh and the trash in
his audience were hypocrites.

I don't know that many right wing dopers.
Drunks, yes. By the ton......but I'm just more used to alcohol being the drug
of choice among conservatives. One is accustomed to falling down drunks wailing
about "drug abusers", (not that everybody who does so is a drunk, of course).
If the allegations against Rush's narctoic addiction prove to be true, that's
not only hypocritical- it should be considered a breach of trust by every one
of his followers.

The buzz on one of our local talk stations was pretty funny tonight. One
station has a mix of moderate and conservative hosts.
A conservative host was running a monologue about the RL drug scandal, and I
laughed so hard I almost wrecked the car!
General line: "The liberals are showing their true colors with this Rush
Limbaugh situation. They are willing to use this weakness to try to destroy his
career! His political enemies are sinking so low, they are trying to distract
us with this single factor and ignore the majority of what Limbaugh stands for
and what he has done! It will backfire on them. The public doesn't like a witch
hunt!"

Thoughts of Monica-Gate and $60mm spent by Ken Starr trying to dig up dirt on
another well known political persona in the past came immediately to mind. I
guess is
low and dirty if the target is a conservative, but an act of patriotism
preserving national security when the target is a moderate or a liberal. :-)




I love the part about "what Limbaugh stands for and what he has done."

To me, Limbaugh is *the* symbol of the non-thinking, self-centered,
selfish, racist, xenophobic, divisive, woman-hating modern
"conservative" that is destroying America. Limbaugh is clever with the
quips, no question about it, but he has done all of us great harm over
the years, stirring up his pack of angry white men and reinforcing their
mindlessness. There's at least a half-dozen examples of Rushophiles
right on this newsgroup.

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. He'd best serve
himself and us by getting off the drugs and off the radio.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze. There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.



There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Poor little angry white man.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze. There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Well there ya go. Any newspaper without a strong, conservative bias is
immediately relegated to National Inquirer status......
Since you wouldn't use one of those papers as TP, it's safe to assume you don't
read them, either.

Do you insulate your philosophy from critique because you are not confident it
will withstand scrutiny?

Enlightened people welcome philosophical critique. Testing ideas against one
another validates the better ones and forces revision of the weak. For all
except those who are certain they already know all they could ever hope to know
about the truth *before* they set out to find it, this is a good thing.
Separates the genuine thinkers from the parrots.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze. There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Well there ya go. Any newspaper without a strong, conservative bias is
immediately relegated to National Inquirer status......
Since you wouldn't use one of those papers as TP, it's safe to assume you don't
read them, either.

Do you insulate your philosophy from critique because you are not confident it
will withstand scrutiny?

Enlightened people welcome philosophical critique. Testing ideas against one
another validates the better ones and forces revision of the weak. For all
except those who are certain they already know all they could ever hope to know
about the truth *before* they set out to find it, this is a good thing.
Separates the genuine thinkers from the parrots.


I used to read the National Review when Bill Buckley was more involved
in it, but for the last few years, with ol' William F. in
semi-retirement, the quality of thought and writing there has
deteriorated. Buckley often infuriated me, but he was a good read.

I read the WSJ every day. Good financial reporting and top-notch feature
stories, and I almost always read those, but the editorial page is so
shrill in its conservative extremism, it is almost a parody of itself,
sort of like a Mel Brooks' movie.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

I mighjt be angry, but I have reason for it, america is going to hell in an
handbasket because of the people. We need to unite and fight against the
rupublicuns.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.



There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these
days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Poor little angry white man.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

Harry wrote:

I used to read the National Review when Bill Buckley was more involved
in it, but for the last few years, with ol' William F. in
semi-retirement, the quality of thought and writing there has
deteriorated. Buckley often infuriated me, but he was a good read.

I read the WSJ every day. Good financial reporting and top-notch feature
stories, and I almost always read those, but the editorial page is so
shrill in its conservative extremism, it is almost a parody of itself,
sort of like a Mel Brooks' movie.


My point exactly. I don't read conservative newspapers, (our local rag is
moderate most of the time with some conservative overtones) but I make it a
point to spend a small portion of time every day listening to right wing radio.

See there, NOYB? By incorporating dissenting thoughts into your daily
smorgasbord of ideas, you could become more like Harry, or more like Gould (who
isn't exactly like Harry). I'm sure that's quite high on your list of goals in
life, right?
GBSEG --- :-)

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
. ..


There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these
days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.


If you can't tell the difference I feel sorry for you.

Well, not really. You deserve it.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Don Pulaski" wrote in message
news:EKWfb.501784$cF.177205@rwcrnsc53...
I mighjt be angry, but I have reason for it, america is going to hell in
an
handbasket because of the people. We need to unite and fight against the
rupublicuns.

Very clever Bill...not.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I read the WSJ every day. Good financial reporting and top-notch feature
stories, and I almost always read those, but the editorial page is so
shrill in its conservative extremism, it is almost a parody of itself,
sort of like a Mel Brooks' movie.

The smarm factor among them is so thick I get the image of marshmallow
creme. And they're just about that white too.

They make me sick to my stomach.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

you and me both, I am sick to death of them all. We should unite and kill
them all. All they do is ruin everything. It is the white man's fault, if
it wasn't for you, me and Harry this world would fall apart.


"jps" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I read the WSJ every day. Good financial reporting and top-notch feature
stories, and I almost always read those, but the editorial page is so
shrill in its conservative extremism, it is almost a parody of itself,
sort of like a Mel Brooks' movie.

The smarm factor among them is so thick I get the image of marshmallow
creme. And they're just about that white too.

They make me sick to my stomach.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.

Limbaugh does sell sleaze. But he's an entertainer...not an elected
official in a position to actually *do* something.



There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these
days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Poor little angry white man.

Yes, I'm white. Nothing else from your sentence is accurate.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.

Limbaugh does sell sleaze. But he's an entertainer...not an elected
official in a position to actually *do* something.


What Limbaugh does is stir up hatred and resentment. That is his stock
in trade.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Don Pulaski" wrote in message
news:GSZfb.502335$cF.178210@rwcrnsc53...
you and me both, I am sick to death of them all. We should unite and kill
them all. All they do is ruin everything. It is the white man's fault,
if
it wasn't for you, me and Harry this world would fall apart.

You go take care of 'em for us Bill Cole, er, I mean "Don" or whatever the
hell your name is this week. After all, it's only whitey righties who kill
people for political reasons in this country.

Who better than another whitey righty to take 'em out?

Go for it Bill, er I mean "Don."

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

Both sides have guys like that. It's just that *your* side puts 'em on the
party's payroll (Carville, McAuliffe). Hell, Daschle and Pelosi are no
better...but they're elected officials.





"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance
or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.

Limbaugh does sell sleaze. But he's an entertainer...not an elected
official in a position to actually *do* something.


What Limbaugh does is stir up hatred and resentment. That is his stock
in trade.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Limbaugh deserves payback for the harm he has done. .

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance
or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze.

Oh, puh-lease. All Limbaugh sells is sleaze, and the lowest common
denominators - like you - lap it up.

Limbaugh does sell sleaze. But he's an entertainer...not an elected
official in a position to actually *do* something.


What Limbaugh does is stir up hatred and resentment. That is his stock
in trade.

Did you ever stop to think that your side has hate-monger-guys just like
Rush...guys like Al Franken, Bill Maher, Paul Begala, and 90% of
Hollywood...but nobody listens to 'em? The reason you guys hate Rush so
much is because he's successful with his message...and your guys aren't.
It's not that Rush is smarter, wittier, or more charismatic than your
spinmeisters...it's just that more people agree with his conservative
political slant.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

NOYB wrote:
The reason you guys hate Rush so
much is because he's successful with his message...and your guys aren't.

His message of hatred? Yes, he's very good at it. He certainly plays to
the fears of you angry white men.


It's not that Rush is smarter, wittier, or more charismatic than your
spinmeisters...it's just that more people agree with his conservative
political slant.

He's a gasbag. But he knows his audience of pinheads.




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

I'm bored so I'll comment.
I dissagree.
I think the *public* is split about 50/50 - thus the balance of power swings
back and forth. We're talking about radio here. I think Rush is smarter,
wittier, and more charismatic than anything the left has tried to throw up
on talk radio. I've said for a long time that the left needs a talent like
Rush to get an opposing radio show off the ground. Good talk radio talent is
HARD to find. Look at the rise of Howard Stern through the 90's. Love him,
or hate him, he's still a one off radio talent. So's Rush.

-W (heard Stern ONCE back when he was in DC and said to my wife "this guy
is going to be HUGE in radio")



I dissagree
"NOYB" wrote in message news:193gb.7846

It's not that Rush than your
spinmeisters...it's just that more people agree with his conservative
political slant.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

Clams Canino wrote:

I'm bored so I'll comment.
I dissagree.
I think the *public* is split about 50/50 - thus the balance of power swings
back and forth. We're talking about radio here. I think Rush is smarter,
wittier, and more charismatic than anything the left has tried to throw up
on talk radio. I've said for a long time that the left needs a talent like
Rush to get an opposing radio show off the ground. Good talk radio talent is
HARD to find. Look at the rise of Howard Stern through the 90's. Love him,
or hate him, he's still a one off radio talent. So's Rush.

-W (heard Stern ONCE back when he was in DC and said to my wife "this guy
is going to be HUGE in radio")



There's no mainstreamer on the left who has the stomach to spew as much
hatred as Rush does.

But, hey, the Bush Administration has created so many openings with its
lies the last few weeks, reporters don't what to write about first.
Maybe we don't need anyone like Rush to chip away at Bush's teflon.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
. ..

Did you ever stop to think that your side has hate-monger-guys just like
Rush...guys like Al Franken, Bill Maher, Paul Begala, and 90% of
Hollywood...but nobody listens to 'em? The reason you guys hate Rush so
much is because he's successful with his message...and your guys aren't.
It's not that Rush is smarter, wittier, or more charismatic than your
spinmeisters...it's just that more people agree with his conservative
political slant.

The left isn't in love with simple solutions to complex problems.

The right loves those little quippy answers to hard, complex problems.
That's what Rush provides.

Trouble is, the simple solutions are very often illusory. Hard problems are
solved by hard problem solving. It doesn't make for good radio fare.

While I agree Franken and Begala are partisans, Maher has often
distinguished himself from left or right.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
The reason you guys hate Rush so
much is because he's successful with his message...and your guys aren't.

His message of hatred? Yes, he's very good at it. He certainly plays to
the fears of you angry white men.


It's not that Rush is smarter, wittier, or more charismatic than your
spinmeisters...it's just that more people agree with his conservative
political slant.

He's a gasbag. But he knows his audience of pinheads.


So the reason the leftist gasbags aren't as popular is because they don't
"know their audience"?

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

Can you or jps do radio? LOL

Seriously though, you don't want a mainstreamer on the left against Rush -
you want someone as far to the left as Rush is to the right - that has the
same "gift" for spin as Rush does.

Great talk radio talent is very rare. You usually have to fill up a four
hour shift and you're on live - without a net - five days a week. Even
Stern can't do it without a lot of help from his "air team" actually
appearing on the air. What Rush does is absolutely amazing, even though I
think his show is only two hours long. There's gotta be another one out
there - and the DNC outta be looking for him - LOL.

-W

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

There's no mainstreamer on the left who has the stomach to spew as much
hatred as Rush does.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

I'm bored so I'll comment.
I dissagree.
I think the *public* is split about 50/50 - thus the balance of power
swings
back and forth. We're talking about radio here. I think Rush is
smarter,
wittier, and more charismatic than anything the left has tried to throw
up
on talk radio. I've said for a long time that the left needs a talent
like
Rush to get an opposing radio show off the ground. Good talk radio
talent is
HARD to find. Look at the rise of Howard Stern through the 90's. Love
him,
or hate him, he's still a one off radio talent. So's Rush.

-W (heard Stern ONCE back when he was in DC and said to my wife "this
guy
is going to be HUGE in radio")



There's no mainstreamer on the left who has the stomach to spew as much
hatred as Rush does.


Franken or Carville? Of course, you are correct in saying "there's no
*mainstreamer* on the left"...'cause the left isn't mainstream.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
The reason you guys hate Rush so
much is because he's successful with his message...and your guys aren't.

His message of hatred? Yes, he's very good at it. He certainly plays to
the fears of you angry white men.


It's not that Rush is smarter, wittier, or more charismatic than your
spinmeisters...it's just that more people agree with his conservative
political slant.

He's a gasbag. But he knows his audience of pinheads.


So the reason the leftist gasbags aren't as popular is because they don't
"know their audience"?

The left isn't filled with angry young men who need a gasbag like Rush
to put their thoughts into words for them.






--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

I'm bored so I'll comment.
I dissagree.
I think the *public* is split about 50/50 - thus the balance of power
swings
back and forth. We're talking about radio here. I think Rush is
smarter,
wittier, and more charismatic than anything the left has tried to throw
up
on talk radio. I've said for a long time that the left needs a talent
like
Rush to get an opposing radio show off the ground. Good talk radio
talent is
HARD to find. Look at the rise of Howard Stern through the 90's. Love
him,
or hate him, he's still a one off radio talent. So's Rush.

-W (heard Stern ONCE back when he was in DC and said to my wife "this
guy
is going to be HUGE in radio")



There's no mainstreamer on the left who has the stomach to spew as much
hatred as Rush does.


Franken or Carville? Of course, you are correct in saying "there's no
*mainstreamer* on the left"...'cause the left isn't mainstream.




That's Rushtalk speaking there. See...you buy into his venom.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:KxYeb.7484

Not *there* to be found...with the stress on *there*. There are many signs
that they had been moved to Syria...and, now, apparently Kuwait.


So, where ARE they now? Seems that a week after they allegedly found
them, that the republicans would be on every T.V. network in the U.S.
saying, see, we told you there were WMD's in Iraq....umm, well,
Kuwait, ummm, or was it Syria? Yeah, that's it. Now all we need to
fabricate is the link between BinLaden and Saddam.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
The reason you guys hate Rush so
much is because he's successful with his message...and your guys
aren't.

His message of hatred? Yes, he's very good at it. He certainly plays to
the fears of you angry white men.


It's not that Rush is smarter, wittier, or more charismatic than your
spinmeisters...it's just that more people agree with his conservative
political slant.

He's a gasbag. But he knows his audience of pinheads.


So the reason the leftist gasbags aren't as popular is because they
don't
"know their audience"?

The left isn't filled with angry young men who need a gasbag like Rush
to put their thoughts into words for them

You meant angry young *white* men, right? There are plenty of angry young
black men, angry young lesbians, and angry young gay men on the left. I
guess there's just not enough of them to propel a left-leaning satirist into
a position where anybody even notices...or cares.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

I don't listen to Rush...not since the 1996 election. All he did whenever I
listened to him was get my blood pressure up...but I realized that even
though he was right a lot of the time, his show didn't make a bit a
difference in our society. You guys give him waaaaaaaay too much credit.
Perhaps that's why your side has made a concerted effort to tear down guys
like Rush (blasting him on an innocuous statement about sports) and O'Reilly
(Franken's book). You think that getting rid of conservative talk show
hosts will bring mainstream America back to the left.




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

I'm bored so I'll comment.
I dissagree.
I think the *public* is split about 50/50 - thus the balance of power
swings
back and forth. We're talking about radio here. I think Rush is
smarter,
wittier, and more charismatic than anything the left has tried to
throw
up
on talk radio. I've said for a long time that the left needs a talent
like
Rush to get an opposing radio show off the ground. Good talk radio
talent is
HARD to find. Look at the rise of Howard Stern through the 90's. Love
him,
or hate him, he's still a one off radio talent. So's Rush.

-W (heard Stern ONCE back when he was in DC and said to my wife
"this
guy
is going to be HUGE in radio")



There's no mainstreamer on the left who has the stomach to spew as much
hatred as Rush does.


Franken or Carville? Of course, you are correct in saying "there's no
*mainstreamer* on the left"...'cause the left isn't mainstream.




That's Rushtalk speaking there. See...you buy into his venom.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:13:30 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

You think that getting rid of conservative talk show
hosts will bring mainstream America back to the left.

It would appear our current president is doing an alright job of
pushing people back to the left. See, he's not all bad.

bb

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
The reason you guys hate Rush so
much is because he's successful with his message...and your guys
aren't.

His message of hatred? Yes, he's very good at it. He certainly plays to
the fears of you angry white men.


It's not that Rush is smarter, wittier, or more charismatic than your
spinmeisters...it's just that more people agree with his conservative
political slant.

He's a gasbag. But he knows his audience of pinheads.


So the reason the leftist gasbags aren't as popular is because they
don't
"know their audience"?

The left isn't filled with angry young men who need a gasbag like Rush
to put their thoughts into words for them

You meant angry young *white* men, right? There are plenty of angry young
black men, angry young lesbians, and angry young gay men on the left. I
guess there's just not enough of them to propel a left-leaning satirist into
a position where anybody even notices...or cares.

Most of those on the left have many ways to express themselves, and
probably consider anger one of the last resorts, as opposed to angry
white men like you, who need someone to spoonfeed them their thoughts.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
Clams Canino wrote:

I'm bored so I'll comment.
I dissagree.
I think the *public* is split about 50/50 - thus the balance of power swings
back and forth. We're talking about radio here. I think Rush is smarter,
wittier, and more charismatic than anything the left has tried to throw up
on talk radio. I've said for a long time that the left needs a talent like
Rush to get an opposing radio show off the ground. Good talk radio talent is
HARD to find. Look at the rise of Howard Stern through the 90's. Love him,
or hate him, he's still a one off radio talent. So's Rush.

-W (heard Stern ONCE back when he was in DC and said to my wife "this guy
is going to be HUGE in radio")



There's no mainstreamer on the left who has the stomach to spew as much
hatred as Rush does.

Except maybe you, Gould, or JPS! Well, maybe you or Gould, JPS is just too dumb.


But, hey, the Bush Administration has created so many openings with its
lies the last few weeks, reporters don't what to write about first.
Maybe we don't need anyone like Rush to chip away at Bush's teflon.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
m...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...

There's no mainstreamer on the left who has the stomach to spew as much
hatred as Rush does.

Except maybe you, Gould, or JPS! Well, maybe you or Gould, JPS is just too
dumb.

This from one of the great braintrusts of rec.boats. You should concentrate
on outboards.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:07:28 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

The left isn't filled with angry young men who need a gasbag like Rush
to put their thoughts into words for them

You meant angry young *white* men, right? There are plenty of angry young
black men, angry young lesbians, and angry young gay men on the left. I
guess there's just not enough of them to propel a left-leaning satirist into
a position where anybody even notices...or cares.

See, this is a mistake--a tactical error, if you will.

Making a statement like this one without being aware of the facts leaves you
open to being shot down by a single counterexample.

"Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Left"
by Al Franken (E.P. Dutton; (August 29, 2003) ISBN: 0525947647) is #2 on the New
York Times Bestseller list for nonfiction. It was number 1 last week, and has
been on the list for 6 weeks.

While you may not like or appreciate Franken's brand of left-leaning humor and
satire, hitting the number two spot on the NYT Bestseller list is no mean
feat--and it's the kind of counterexample I referred to.

Also (since I seem to be on a roll here), the number 4 spot is held by that
darling of Conservative America (NOT), Molly Ivins, with her "Bushwacked." This
is her first week on the list, so it will be interesting to see where her book
goes.

OB. BOAT CONTENT:

I got nothing.

Joe Parsons

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the
Left"
by Al Franken (E.P. Dutton; (August 29, 2003) ISBN: 0525947647) is #2 on the
New
York Times Bestseller list for nonfiction. It was number 1 last week, and
has
been on the list for 6 weeks.

While you may not like or appreciate Franken's brand of left-leaning humor
and
satire, hitting the number two spot on the NYT Bestseller list is no mean
feat--and it's the kind of counterexample I referred to.

Also (since I seem to be on a roll here), the number 4 spot is held by that
darling of Conservative America (NOT), Molly Ivins, with her "Bushwacked."
This
is her first week on the list, so it will be interesting to see where her
book
goes.

OB. BOAT CONTENT:

I got nothing.

Joe Parsons

(Joke follows. Install sense of humor now:)

Could it be that there are a lot of liberal books on the NYT best seller lists
because the typical conservative already blew his or her entire book budget for
the year buying "Treason" by A. Coulter, and it will take them from now until
the 2004 elections to sound out the bigger words?

(Joke ends.)

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

They're both just a flash in the pan. People are interested in them right
now in the same way you gawk at a really bad car accident.

BTW--who is #1 on the list? grin




"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:07:28 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

[snip]

The left isn't filled with angry young men who need a gasbag like Rush
to put their thoughts into words for them

You meant angry young *white* men, right? There are plenty of angry
young
black men, angry young lesbians, and angry young gay men on the left. I
guess there's just not enough of them to propel a left-leaning satirist
into
a position where anybody even notices...or cares.

See, this is a mistake--a tactical error, if you will.

Making a statement like this one without being aware of the facts leaves
you
open to being shot down by a single counterexample.

"Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the
Left"
by Al Franken (E.P. Dutton; (August 29, 2003) ISBN: 0525947647) is #2 on
the New
York Times Bestseller list for nonfiction. It was number 1 last week, and
has
been on the list for 6 weeks.

While you may not like or appreciate Franken's brand of left-leaning humor
and
satire, hitting the number two spot on the NYT Bestseller list is no mean
feat--and it's the kind of counterexample I referred to.

Also (since I seem to be on a roll here), the number 4 spot is held by
that
darling of Conservative America (NOT), Molly Ivins, with her "Bushwacked."
This
is her first week on the list, so it will be interesting to see where her
book
goes.

OB. BOAT CONTENT:

I got nothing.

Joe Parsons

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
"Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the
Left"
by Al Franken (E.P. Dutton; (August 29, 2003) ISBN: 0525947647) is #2 on
the
New
York Times Bestseller list for nonfiction. It was number 1 last week,
and
has
been on the list for 6 weeks.

While you may not like or appreciate Franken's brand of left-leaning
humor
and
satire, hitting the number two spot on the NYT Bestseller list is no mean
feat--and it's the kind of counterexample I referred to.

Also (since I seem to be on a roll here), the number 4 spot is held by
that
darling of Conservative America (NOT), Molly Ivins, with her
"Bushwacked."
This
is her first week on the list, so it will be interesting to see where her
book
goes.

OB. BOAT CONTENT:

I got nothing.

Joe Parsons

(Joke follows. Install sense of humor now:)

Could it be that there are a lot of liberal books on the NYT best seller
lists
because the typical conservative already blew his or her entire book
budget for
the year buying "Treason" by A. Coulter, and it will take them from now
until
the 2004 elections to sound out the bigger words?


Perhaps. But thanks to the Bush tax rebate, we were able to buy enough
copies of "Who's Looking Out for You?" to make it #1.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:44:23 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

They're both just a flash in the pan. People are interested in them right
now in the same way you gawk at a really bad car accident.

Really? Was Franken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot: And Other
Observations" a flash in the pan, as well? If that's true, then why is it at
198 on Amazon's sales rank--four years after its publication?

Is "Lies" at #4 in Amazon's ranking because people are "gawking" at it?

And his other work, "Oh, The Things I Know! A Guide to Success, Or, Failing
That, Happiness," published in March of this year, is around 4,200.

This is not about whether you agree with Franken, of course; I'm simply showing
how certain unverified assertions can dismantle an argument, if one is not
careful.

For what it's worth, I find more people who self-identify as "liberal" reading
conservative commentators and authors than I do "conservatives" reading liberal
texts. In general, those who tend to read the likes of Rush Limbaugh (and
recently, his tag-along kid brother, David), O'Reilly, Coulter and the like,
seem to restrict their reading and listening to those who will reinforce and
confirm the beliefs they already hold.

Last month, for example, someone made a comment about Al Franken's earlier
effort, "Rush Limbaugh...." He said, "The title is not supported with any known
facts." In saying that, he demonstrated that, if he had read that particular
book, he did not do so carefully, or critically. As it turns out, both of
Franken's overtly political books are quite well researched and documented.
This doesn't mean they are "good," or even useful--but any arguer will find
himself at a disadvantage by making assertions that can be so easily disproved.

I'm going to go think about my boats for a while.

Joe Parsons



BTW--who is #1 on the list? grin

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...

Perhaps. But thanks to the Bush tax rebate, we were able to buy enough
copies of "Who's Looking Out for You?" to make it #1.

Taking over first place in the right wing fabricators club.

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 04:17:56 GMT, WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 02:35:43 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

For what it's worth, I find more people who self-identify as "liberal" reading
conservative commentators and authors than I do "conservatives" reading liberal
texts. In general, those who tend to read the likes of Rush Limbaugh (and
recently, his tag-along kid brother, David), O'Reilly, Coulter and the like,
seem to restrict their reading and listening to those who will reinforce and
confirm the beliefs they already hold.

But a few posts before, Joe says :

"Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the
Left" by Al Franken (E.P. Dutton; (August 29, 2003) ISBN: 0525947647) is
#2 on the New York Times Bestseller list for nonfiction. It was number
1 last week, and has been on the list for 6 weeks.


So, the conservatives are reading these or the liberals are speed
readers?

I don't pretend to know specifically *who* is reading any of these books,
although I did report what my own observation has been.

But I don't know that a book needs to have both "liberals" and "conservatives"
buying it in order to reach the NYT Bestseller list or to achieve a high ranking
with Amazon. I mentioned those statistics only to provide a counterexample for
a statement: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:44:23 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

They're both just a flash in the pan. People are interested in them right
now in the same way you gawk at a really bad car accident.

My point was, as it is now, that making an assertion that is so easily
undermined can destroy a point someone is trying to make.

Duh

"Duh?"

Joe Parsons

OT--WMD's found by Kuwait?
 

jps wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...

Perhaps. But thanks to the Bush tax rebate, we were able to buy enough
copies of "Who's Looking Out for You?" to make it #1.

Taking over first place in the right wing fabricators club.


Ahhh..those right-wing bulk buys again.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.